Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 30, 2026
11:19
Oral Biofilm Formation on Different Materials for Dental Implants
Published on: June 24, 2018
11.6K
Double Crown-Retained Removable Prostheses Supported by Implants or Teeth and Implants: A Long-Term Clinical
Gregor-Georg Zafiropoulos1, Moosa Abuzayeda2, Colin Alexander Murray3
1Department of Surgical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Kuwait.
Summary
Implant-retained or tooth-implant-retained removable dental prostheses show high survival rates. Cantilever designs had fewer complications than saddle designs, especially for tooth-implant-retained prostheses.
Area of Science:
- Dental prosthetics
- Implantology
- Prosthodontics
Background:
- Investigating survival and complication rates of implant (I)-retained and tooth-implant (TI)-retained prostheses.
- Comparing implant-retained double crown removable dental prostheses (I-DC-RDPs) versus tooth-implant-retained double crown removable dental prostheses (TI-DC-RDPs).
Approach:
- Retrospective clinical study of 110 non-smokers.
- Analysis of 153 teeth and 508 implants used in partially and completely edentulous arches.
- Evaluation of abutment survival and mechanical/biological complications for cantilever (CAN) and saddle (SAD) designs.
Key Points:
- 10-year survival rates for teeth and implants were both 99.3%.
- Cumulative rates of TI- and I-RDPs free of technical complications were 77% and 86%, respectively.
- TI-RDPs with saddle designs had a significantly higher risk of technical complications compared to cantilevers (p=0.02).
Conclusions:
- Both I- and TI-DC-RDPs are recommendable for restoring edentulous arches.
- I-DC-RDPs in completely edentulous arches showed lower complication rates than TI-DC-RDPs in partially edentulous arches.
- Cantilever prostheses resulted in significantly fewer technical complications than saddle prostheses.
